Advocates from across Meghalaya on Wednesday, 7 October 2026, escalated their agitation demanding the removal of state Advocate General Amit Kumar, alleging he continued to appear before courts despite a formal assurance from the Conrad K. Sangma-led state government that he would not do so. A large number of lawyers representing bar associations from multiple districts converged on Shillong for a rally, marking a fresh flashpoint in a dispute that has gripped the state's legal fraternity for several weeks.

Key Developments

Addressing the media after the rally, lawyer Kishore Gautam said representatives of the legal community had previously met Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma, following which they received an assurance that Kumar would not appear before the Meghalaya High Court or any other court or tribunal in the state.

Gautam alleged, however, that Kumar continued to appear before both the High Court and trial courts despite that commitment. 'After the meeting with the Chief Minister, an assurance was once again given to us that Mr Amit Kumar would not appear in the High Court or any of the courts or tribunals in the state of Meghalaya,' Gautam said.

He added that he subsequently attempted to alert the Chief Minister about Kumar's alleged appearances via WhatsApp messages and SMS, using contact details obtained during their earlier meeting. The lack of any concrete government response, Gautam said, left lawyers with no option but to resume their boycott of court proceedings.

The Lawyers' Demand

The bar associations had earlier announced a statewide boycott of judicial work effective 1 October, exempting bail matters and other urgent cases. The action was triggered specifically by Kumar's alleged continued court appearances, which the lawyers maintain are contrary to the assurances given by the government.

'Our demand is the same: we want the removal of Mr Amit Kumar,' Gautam said, questioning why no concrete action had been taken despite repeated representations and meetings with the government. Bar associations across Meghalaya have removed Kumar from their rolls and have formally sought his removal as Advocate General.

Kumar's Position

Kumar, however, has maintained that the appointment of the Advocate General is the prerogative of the state government and that, as a lawyer, he remains entitled to practise. This position is at the heart of the standoff — with the legal fraternity insisting the government's assurance overrides that argument, and Kumar contending that his right to practise is legally protected.

What Happens Next

Gautam said the executive committees of the High Court Bar Association and all district court bar associations would convene to decide the next course of action. Bar associations across the state reportedly remain united and are expected to continue their agitation through various forms of protest. The government's response — or its continued silence — is likely to determine whether the boycott deepens further.